Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.
B331918
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 12, 2025Background
- Noland sued Land of the Free, L.P. and its owner alleging wage-and-hour violations, unpaid commissions, constructive termination, PAGA and related employment claims; the operative complaint pleaded 25 causes of action.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment twice; the first motion was denied on procedural notice grounds, the second (re-noticed) motion was considered by a different judge and granted, and plaintiff appealed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment after finding (inter alia) that Noland was an independent contractor, no commission was owed because no lease was executed, and there were no triable retaliation or IIED issues.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on the merits and rejected Noland’s procedural challenges (trial continuance/sanctions, discovery reopening, court review of opposition).
- The panel discovered that appellant’s briefs contained numerous fabricated case quotations and mis-cited authorities generated by generative AI that counsel admitted using and not verifying.
- The court held the appeal frivolous on account of pervasive fabricated authority, imposed $10,000 in sanctions payable to the clerk, ordered counsel to serve the opinion on his client, and directed the clerk to notify the State Bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering defendants’ second motion for summary judgment despite Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(f)(2) | Second MSJ was barred because it reasserted issues from the prior motion without newly discovered facts or change in law | Court may exercise inherent authority to reconsider prior procedural denial and decide a properly noticed motion on the merits | Court affirmed: Le Francois permits trial courts to reconsider and hear successive MSJs if they exercise inherent authority and give parties notice/opportunity to be heard |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s sanctions motion against defendants for seeking a continuance allegedly to refile the MSJ | Yadegari’s accident claim was false and used to obtain continuance to relitigate summary judgment | The continuance and refiling were supported by counsel’s sworn declaration of injury; second MSJ did not prove bad faith | No abuse of discretion; sanctions denied because record supports counsel’s declaration and plaintiff offered no contradictory evidence |
| Whether summary judgment improperly resolved PAGA and employment claims (wage/overtime/commission) | Noland argued triable issues existed on wage claims, commissions, and PAGA liability | Defendants showed Noland was an independent contractor, no executed lease for claimed commission, and insufficient evidence of adverse action for retaliation | Affirmed: plaintiff forfeited many contentions by failing to cite record authority; court found no triable issues on the operative claims |
| Whether reopening discovery or court’s alleged failure to review opposition required reversal | Noland sought more time/discovery to oppose and argued the court ignored her opposition briefs | Court relied on case age, prior discovery positions, procedural rules, and record; opposition was later filed and considered | Denial of discovery reopening and summary judgment affirmed; presumption court performed duties and reviewed opposition was unrebutted |
| Whether appellant’s counsel should be sanctioned for filing briefs containing fabricated legal authority generated by AI | Counsel claimed reliance on AI and lack of awareness of hallucinations; requested leave to correct briefs | Respondents highlighted pervasive fabrications that wasted court resources and undermined appellate process | Court found briefs frivolous and sanctionable; imposed $10,000 payable to court, ordered opinion served on client and State Bar notification |
Key Cases Cited
- Le Francois v. Goel, 35 Cal.4th 1094 (Cal. 2005) (trial courts retain inherent authority to reconsider prior interim orders and to entertain successive summary judgment motions)
- Marshall v. County of San Diego, 238 Cal.App.4th 1095 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (review of trial court’s authority to consider successive summary judgment motions)
- Malek Media Group, LLC v. AXQG Corp., 58 Cal.App.5th 817 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (frivolous-appeal standard and negligible legal foundation concept)
- In re Marriage of Flaherty, 31 Cal.3d 637 (Cal. 1982) (use of subjective and objective standards to determine frivolous appeals)
- Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (reliance on fabricated AI-generated opinions is abusive and sanctionable)
- Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky, LLP, 215 Cal.App.4th 534 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (importance of counsel’s honesty and imposition of appellate sanctions)